Judicial Purge Raises Alarm Over Independence and Immigration Court Crisis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A growing number of dismissed immigration judges are set to publicly voice concerns about the state of the nation’s immigration courts, alleging potential political interference and raising serious questions about due process as case backlogs reach unprecedented levels. The panel, speaking at a National Press Club Headliners Newsmaker event on November 13th, includes three recently terminated judges and the president of their union, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE).

Since January, 82 immigration judges have been dismissed without stated cause, a move critics say threatens the independence of the judiciary and exacerbates an already overwhelmed system. While the administration authorized the hiring of up to 800 judges to alleviate the strain, the total number of sitting judges has actually decreased from roughly 700 to 600, according to preliminary research. This counterintuitive trend, combined with reports of inexperienced military attorneys being fast-tracked into temporary judicial roles, is fueling concerns about the integrity of the immigration process.

"The timing of these dismissals is deeply troubling," said one former judge, speaking on condition of anonymity. "To remove experienced adjudicators at a time when the system is already buckling under the weight of over 2.5 million cases feels…calculated. It sends a chilling message to those of us who are committed to upholding due process."

A System Under Strain

The immigration court system has been grappling with a massive backlog for years, but the situation has reached a critical point. According to data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), the number of pending cases has surged in recent years, with some individuals facing years-long delays before their cases are heard. This backlog not only inflicts hardship on immigrants seeking asylum or other forms of relief, but also strains the resources of the courts and the attorneys who represent them.

“The delays are devastating for asylum seekers,” explains an immigration attorney who requested anonymity. “Every day that passes increases the risk of harm to our clients and creates immense emotional and psychological stress. It also makes it harder to gather evidence and build a strong case.”

Concerns Over Judicial Independence
The dismissal of 82 judges without stated cause has raised red flags among legal experts and advocates. Critics argue that the move represents a politically motivated purge, designed to install judges who are more sympathetic to the administration's immigration enforcement priorities.

“When judges are removed without a clear and justifiable reason, it erodes public trust in the impartiality of the courts,” says a former legal scholar specializing in immigration law. “It creates the perception that decisions are being made based on political considerations rather than on the merits of the case.”

One of the most concerning aspects of the situation is the reported hiring of military attorneys to fill temporary judicial roles. While the administration has defended this practice as a necessary measure to address the staffing shortage, critics argue that it compromises the quality and fairness of the immigration process.

“These attorneys, while undoubtedly skilled, lack the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to adjudicate complex immigration cases,” said another former judge, also speaking anonymously. “They haven’t spent years studying the nuances of immigration law, and they haven’t developed the judgment and empathy required to make fair and impartial decisions.”

A Shift in Approach?
The administration's decision to fast-track military attorneys into judicial roles appears to reflect a broader shift in approach to immigration adjudication. Critics argue that the administration is prioritizing efficiency over fairness, and that it is willing to compromise the quality of the process in order to expedite deportations.

“This is not about addressing the backlog; it’s about implementing a policy of mass deportation,” says an advocate with a leading immigrant rights organization. “They’re cutting corners, sacrificing due process, and rushing to judgment in order to meet arbitrary quotas.”

What’s at Stake?
The implications of this crisis extend far beyond the immediate backlog of cases. At stake is the very principle of due process, the foundation of the American legal system. If the courts are perceived as being politically motivated or lacking in impartiality, it will undermine public trust in the rule of law and erode the integrity of the immigration system.

The judges and union representatives speaking at the National Press Club event are hoping to shed light on these concerns and to demand greater transparency and accountability from the administration. They are calling for an independent investigation into the dismissals and a commitment to restoring the independence and integrity of the immigration courts.

The event promises to be a crucial moment in the ongoing debate over immigration policy and the future of the American legal system. As the backlog continues to grow and the concerns over judicial independence intensify, the stakes could not be higher.